[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4731-4732]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          WE SHOULD STEP AWAY FROM THE BRINK OF WAR WITH IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, is this really the time for the 
United States to lead an attack on Iraq and to make this the immediate 
centerpiece of our war on terrorism? I think not.
  This is not to suggest that military action and war are never 
justified. Clearly, there are times when force is not only justified 
but is the most effective means of securing human rights,

[[Page 4732]]

freedom and security. Knowing when to go to war is as important, 
however, as recognizing when a war is justified.
  Liberating the people of Iraq from one of the world's most repressive 
regimes and preventing Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons 
and other weapons of mass destruction are all worthy goals that are 
beyond reasonable argument. But are we certain that we have reached the 
point where war is the only means of achieving these goals?
  A few weeks ago I joined Senator McCain and other legislators at the 
Wehrkunde Conference. During the conference, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld 
confronted the Europeans, challenging them to join in military action 
to disarm Saddam. Most Europeans balked, and they continue to balk 
today. We may not be entirely alone, but we remain largely isolated, 
and that will not only make success in Iraq harder. It will also risk 
our long-term success in the war against al Qaeda and terrorism.
  The administration speaks of a short war and assured success. But 
success in Iraq is not just about eliminating Saddam. Many military 
experts believe that that will be the easy part. Success in Iraq also 
means managing the ensuing social chaos, keeping a lid on the Middle 
East powder keg, thwarting terrorist attacks at home, rebuilding Iraq, 
and doing all of this when our own economy is faltering. Energy prices 
are rising and domestic priorities like health care and education are 
crying out for attention.
  The President should be commended for deciding to act through the 
United Nations with respect to Iraq. And Secretary of State Powell 
performed admirably in achieving the unanimous Security Council vote 
giving Iraq a last chance to disarm and instituting renewed 
inspections. Those were steps that earned us the support of the world 
community. But that support has dwindled as the administration presses 
for early action on a timetable that seems to be largely driven by the 
rising temperatures in the Iraqi desert rather than the degree to which 
we have built international support. In fact, this has gone so far that 
some members of the Security Council seem prepared to repudiate the 
resolution they so recently approved.
  The President's rhetoric has fueled the perception that America is 
eager for invasion, no matter what the rest of the world thinks. This 
perception has been compounded by seemingly shifting goals and 
rationales. President Bush did finally specify disarmament as opposed 
to regime change as the official goal of any U.S. invasion of Iraq. But 
the administration's emphasis has changed as it suited the President's 
case. It has been weapons of mass destruction one day, potential links 
to al Qaeda the next, and Saddam's atrocious human rights record the 
day after that.
  The point is not that these rationales are unfounded. Saddam is a 
ruthless tyrant who has attacked his neighbors and terrorized and 
murdered his own people. He has defied U.N. resolutions and has given 
every sign of trying to continue to evade disarmament.

                              {time}  1815

  The point is that it is difficult to believe the administration did 
not opt for war long ago whatever the consequences. Although we could 
be left virtually alone to bear the costs of winning the war and 
securing the peace, the administration has appeared intent on moving 
forward, seemingly with contempt for international opinion.
  Although it seems that we are beyond the 11th hour and the clock is 
ticking, there are things we can and must do before taking military 
action against Iraq. I think continued diplomatic pressure and the 
threat of military action can force Saddam Hussein to disarm or seek 
permanent exile abroad. We should continue to apply this pressure 
through the United Nations.
  Further, I think we must be more open to the idea of so-called 
coercive inspections, using our military buildup in coordination with 
the U.N. to test the effectiveness of a more robust inspection and 
disarmament process in Iraq. This would involve putting the most 
qualified people in the field, providing them with real-time 
intelligence, destroying forbidden items as soon as they are detected, 
strictly prohibiting Iraqi flying in the designated no-fly zones and 
reinforcing the authority of inspectors with ground troops if 
necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I am an optimist by nature, but I am not naive. Coercive 
inspections alone may not be enough to disarm Saddam. But I believe 
they may be the best step now to build greater international support 
for forcing him to disarm. And as a strategic move in our larger role 
against terrorism, tightening the international noose on Saddam strikes 
me as a smarter option, at least in the short term, than opting now for 
a war with all its known and unknown consequences.

                          ____________________